Littlejohn v. Kernkamp et al

Filing 2

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing case.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

ANTOINNE LITTLEJOHN,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
AMY KERNKAMP, et al.,

11

CASE NO. C13-5077 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Antoinne Littlejohn’s

14 (“Littlejohn”) motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 1) and proposed complaint
15 (Dkt. 1–1).
16

On February 1, 2013, Littlejohn filed his motion and complaint alleging that

17 certain state actors released “non-conviction information” in violation of his right under
18 the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Dkt. 1.
19

The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon

20 completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the
21 “privilege of pleading in forma pauperis . . . in civil actions for damages should be
22 allowed only in exceptional circumstances.” Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d 1328 (9th

ORDER - 1

1 Cir. 1986). Moreover, the court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed
2 in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375
3 U.S. 845 (1963).
4

A federal court may dismiss sua sponte pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) when

5 it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
6 Omar v. Sea Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A trial court may
7 dismiss a claim sua sponte under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) . . . . Such a dismissal may be
8 made without notice where the claimant cannot possibly win relief.”).
9

In this case, Littlejohn has failed to show that he is entitled to proceed in forma

10 pauperis or has failed to state an adequate claim for relief. With regard to his claim,
11 there is no constitutional right to non-disclosure of police incident reports or
12 investigations or a right to damages for the lawful retention of public records. Thus,
13 Littlejohn cannot possibly win relief and has failed to show that exceptional
14 circumstances exist to allow in forma pauperis status. Therefore, the Court denies
15 Littlejohn’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses his complaint sua sponte
16 for failure to state a claim.
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 12th day of February, 2013.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2